ABDUL AHAD vs AMJAD ALI and others

ORDER

' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Peshawar High Court dated 16-1-2006 through this petition.

2. The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that petitioner filed a complaint before Illaqa Qazi under sections 419/420/468/471/109/34, P.P.C. The respondent filed application for stay of the proceedings on the ground that civil suit had already been filed before the competent Court which was pending adjudication. The Qazi concerned stayed the proceedings vide order dated 18- 10-2004 which was upheld up to the level of the learned Peshawar High Court vide impugned judgment dated 16-1-2006.

3, The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Courts below erred in law to stay the proceedings without adopting the proper procedure as prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned Peshawar High Court had considered the contentions of learned counsel of the petitioner and rejected the same as is evident from para. 3 of the impugned judgment which is reproduced hereunder:-- "Admittedly, the suit house is not the exclusive ownership of the petitioner. He is owner of the house in question along with his brother Ghulam Rabbani. Installment of electricity meter is not a title deed. Abdul Samad, father of the petitioner and Ghulam Rabbani, is alive and he has tendered an affidavit in Court that he has given this house to Abdul Ahad, the present petitioner, and his brother Ghulam Rabbani and that there was a tussle over the electricity expenses. So in order to avoid the same, Ghulam Rabbani, the other brother/owner through respondent Amjad Ali installed another meter in the said house. Moreover, a civil suit regarding ownership is pending in a competent forum. So keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders of the two Courts below need no interference and the abashment petition in hand having no legal force is hereby dismissed in limine."

5. There is now consensus of opinion that there is no invariable rule that a criminal proceeding should be stayed pending the decision of civil suit but the matter is one of discretion entirely. While exercising discretion the guiding principle should be to see as to whether the accused is likely to be prejudiced if the criminal proceedings are not stayed in case of dispute regarding title where it is difficult to draw a line between a bona fide claim and the criminal action. All the Courts below had exercised discretion in favour of the respondent keeping in view the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts. See Muhammad Akbar v. The State PLD 1968 SC 281; Sheikh Ahmad v. Sheikh Muhammad Younis 1971 PCr.LJ 331 andMansharamMadhavadas v. ChetanramRupchand and others AIR 1945 Sindh 32.

6. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the petition being devoid of any merit.Is hereby dismissed. Leave refused.